Re: [tip:timers/urgent] ktime: Get rid of the union

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:12AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > Get rid of the union and just keep ktime_t as simple typedef of type s64.
> > 
> > All good stuff. One question that remains is why keep the type while
> > removing the cycles_t type?
> 
> That would have been a massive surgery which I was not able to pull off on
> top of the other changes.

And the reason ktime needs be s64 is because 0 is at boot, and we need
to represent time before boot, right? Might want to stick that in a
comment somewhere near that typedef, so I don't keep asking this ;-)